Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE

CATATAN PADA TEMPLATE INI

Not all DOE operating units have the same copyright policy; some claim there is no copyright while others are entitled to be part of their contract with DOE. Please check the sites and units before assuming PD-USGov.

• Lab explicitly claiming copyright and/or requiring no free license:
  • Sandia National Laboratory [1]
  • Brookhaven National Laboratory [2]
  • Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory [3] (enabling "non-commercial, educational, or scientific use," but other potentially copyrighted work)
  • Pacific Northwest National Laboratory [4]. Just like Oak Ridge.
  • Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory [5]

• IMAGE IN CATEGORY ABOVE CAN NOT USE TAG PD; THEY MUST JUSTIFIED US "FAIR USE"

• Labs that require attribution of the sort:
  • Los Alamos National Laboratory [6]

    Note that scientific and technical information is Ã, Â © 2006 Los Alamos National Security, LLC All rights reserved.

• YOU NEED TO USE {{PD-LosAlamos}} TO CREATE ANY REQUIRED ATTRIBUTION.

• • Argonne National Laboratory: Their image library appears to be published under the license of "free use with attribution". [7]

• USE {{cc-by}}

• • Oak Ridge National Laboratory

• USE {{PD-OakRidge}}

• Labs with ambiguous or nonexistent copyright policies:
  • Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory [8] (apparently implying that they consider their work to be potentially copyrighted)
  • Fermilab [9] COPYRIGHT STATUS: Documents written by Fermilab employees are the work under the contract of the US Government DE-AC02-76CH03000 and are therefore subject to the following license: The Government is granted for himself and others acting on the name of a paid, non-exclusive, non-revocable license in these documents to reproduce, prepare derivative works, and appear publicly and publicly displayed by or on behalf of the Government.
    • Note that this is not a public domain license; just the opposite. It gives the US government (or another party acting on its behalf) the right to do these things, but not with anyone.
  • Ames Laboratory [10]
  • Idaho National Laboratory, no policy found, but has "Copyright Ã, Â © Idaho National Laboratory 2006" at the bottom of every page.
  • National Renewable Energy Laboratory [11]
  • Stanford Linear Accelerator Center [12]
  • Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility [13], waffles on whether commercial use is permitted or not.
  • Albany Research Center/National Energy Technology Laboratory: says that most information from their website is in the public domain, but some parts may be copyrighted by a third party. [14]/li>
  • New Brunswick Laboratory - No policy found
  • Laboratory of Radiology and the Environment - There is no copyright page, but again, there is no page at all! Note however that they are hosted by the Idaho Nacional Lab, see above.

• MAYBE PD, MAYBE NOT; BETTER USING "FAIR USE" TAGS AND RATIONAL

For images that can not use PD or questionable tags, consider whether they will be included in the "Wikipedia: fair use" provision of U.S. copyright law.

In all DOE-sponsored laboratory issues that operate as contractors to the US government, I refer you to the CENDI copyright FAQ, section 4.0. Lupo 08:01, November 9, 2005 (UTC)

Maps Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE

Unambiguous/nonexistent copyright policy institutions

In my opinion, we can not assume a public domain only on the basis of government contracts. Therefore, in relation to the works of institutions that do not specify how their works can be used, I think it would be better to be conservative about the terms in which we can use them. I have modified the note above correctly. However, IANAL, so I appreciate the comments of those who know about this. Or, does anyone want to send an e-mail to the institution and ask? --xyzzy _n 19:57, January 27, 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed. According to copyright, unless there is a strict statement of free licensing, or this is a work produced by a federal employee when he is paid to do the work, then we should consider it a copyright. - BRIAN 0918 o 2007-04-20 12: 10Z

There are many good materials that are nominally PD-USGov but are under contractor or non-free (eg, restrictions on "non-commercial use"). So is there any way to use these items? I am looking for an example of a PD-USGov-DOE license for PNNL or Oakridge stuff, but some examples that I find seem quite dubious. Is there a history here that may be relevant? J. Johnson (speaking) 23:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

NREL works published by EERE

The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy publishes some material from NREL and says "The material on the EERE website is in the public domain." For example, look at the EERE renewable energy source map like this solar energy map that says "NREL" on it. It appears that EERE treats some of the NREL publications as if they were the work of the US Federal Government. --Teratornis (talk) 21:46, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Template: PD-USGov-DOE Image lab using

A number of media files from the US National lab are labeled as {{PD-USGov-DOE}}, even though they are not free media and will have WP: NON-FREE criteria. To further complicate the situation, some pictures cite DOE and the laboratory as the source. The question remains about how to handle thousands or more files that may be incorrectly labeled with {{PD-USGov-DOE}}. Smallman12q (talk) 23:30, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

OVER BOLD - and not exactly exact

DRAWINGS 'DRAWINGS IN THE ABOVE CATEGORY CAN NOT USE TAG PD; THEY SHOULD BE REQUIRED AS "FAIR USE" is not only too brave, but too brave. In particular, the absolute "MUST BE..." is incorrect. In fact, permissions can be obtained on a case-by-case basis, and I think this option should be pointed out. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

You will need an OTRS ticket then... Smallman12q (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Alternatively formulation: with OTRS tickets like that can be used. Options are excluded by the current language. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Is this all true?

Reading the previous comments, I can not help to conclude that this is a case of the blind leading the blind. I do not see comments from anyone who might be expected to have authoritative knowledge about the topic, despite attempts. But I see a race down that assumes a bad scenario that all of these should be assumed to be copyrighted.

Looking at it is clear that every job is completed by a temporary laboratory employee under a federal contract, even if the employee is part of a third party organization, always and always a PD-Gov.

Naturally, LLNL has explicitly stated this on their site, but only because Argonne is not impossible not implying that they are not protected by the same laws. Pages like Sandia, which clearly stated its work was federal and protected by federal copyright and then immediately claimed the copyright only made me "laugh", the same kind of laughter I'd emitted when I saw the Imperial War Museum claiming copyright on images from World War I.

So I will mark all pictures like PD-Gov unless someone appears with the caselaw.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:53, April 3, 2015 (UTC)

Here's a list of the latest notifications:

The LANL clearly states that the public may use their work, and actually declare it because it is federal, stating that:

The US Government reserves the right to use, reproduce and distribute this information. The public may copy and use this information without charge, provided that this Notice and any authorship statements are reproduced on all copies.

[16]

LLNL made a similar statement:

Documents written by LLNL include, but not limited to, articles, photographs, images and other information contained in text, images and/or other media, sponsored by the US Department of Energy under the Contract of DE-AC52-07NA27344. Therefore, the US government maintains a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to publish or reproduce these documents, or permit others to do so, for the purposes of the US government. All documents available from this server may be protected under the U.S. Copyright Act and Alien Rights. Permission to reproduce may be required.

[17]

One may want to read the last statement to say otherwise, but read it carefully, there is a clear statement that the FBI "allows others to do it" and subsequent statements refer to the federal laws they argue.

EIA is as explicit as LANL:

US Government publications are in the public domain and are not subject to copyright protection.

[18]

Fermi:

Documents written by Fermilab employees are the work under the contract of the US Government DE-AC02-76CH03000 and are therefore subject to the following license: The Government is granted for himself and others acting on his behalf a paid, non-exclusive, world license canceled in these documents to reproduce, prepare derivative works, and perform publicly and publicly display by or on behalf of the Government.

[19]

That's enough for now, this language seems rather general. So if the language "prepares derivative works, and appears publicly and publicly displayed by or on behalf of the Government" means PD-Gov, assumed in the tag, then all these labs are PD-Gov. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

National Nuclear Security Administration

Are images from NNSA copyrighted? I see that they are claiming CC-BY-ND on images from their Flickr photostream, but I would think they would be in the public domain as a US government agency. MB298 (talk) 04:53, December 2, 2016 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia